Because the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. If your app and it's content, in and of itself, generates revenue, you agree to share that revenue with Apple.

Once the app is downloaded it need have nothing to do with the app store ever again. Apps can do their own distribution. Apple wants a cut.

Funny reading the whining going on here. Apparently, researching and coming to an informed decision before shooting off is something that's not done well here.

Apple's want's to give users the OPTION. Personally, from a user's viewpoint I think it's a good idea. I would prefer to get one "bill" from one spot. If I end up subscribing to multiple digital magazines and all of them required a separate payment model, that would be a mess to maintain. However, keeping it all nice-and-neat in one place is much more preferred me think.

I can understand the publishers b***hing about it, but this is more about the consumer. As far as I'm concerned, the entire industry had decades to come up with something but they sat on their chubby backsides. Now a new player comes in and shakes everything up, the users love it, and the media suddenly thinks everything is unfair. Boo hoo, cry me a river.

Apple is hardly the entire industry - both Sony and Amazon have their own readers. The Sony reader is on Android.

All of these publishers should just boycott Apple. The bad blood towards Apple out there is absolutely astounding, and this re-interpretation of the rules ( which is clearly what happened) means that Apple cannot be trusted. Ever. Whens the next interpretation of the rules?

Once Android gets any purchase in the market all publishers will go there. They have no reason to pay 30% margins for getting nothing back.

Although we live in a cultural of consumers who think "free" is the only fair price, it is a fact that infrastructure does cost money and well designed infrastructure costs even more.

I understand Apple's desire to be compensated for its platform. And Amazon, for example, can give alway their app because they make substantial revenue through book purchases. Same would go for Sony.

It really is fair for Apple to demand payments to support that infrastructure is too much. Apple did the right thing in the short term of allowing free apps to build its platform out, and therefore Apple's remuneration from the free apps was increased presence. But to expand and support the platform, other revenue is required.

Makes sense to me, because I don't expect nor should anyone expect free, though I may prefer the current status quo.

However, it's not economically sustainable for Apple. Apple caused bad press however in rejection of the Sony app. A softer approach such as accepting the app but requiring migration to in-app purchases would make more sense. Perhaps so would something less than 30% or sliding scales, or an in-app accounting show users the cost from the publisher and the Apple "tax".

Someone needs to take Apple to task about this, as it's simply theft and a blatant abuse of a near monopoly. Why the heck should apple get 30% from someone else's content? ...

They don't get 30% as some kind of "tribute," they get 30% because that's pretty much the cost of them hosting your app on their servers and them paying all the credit card fees, etc. etc.

This is where irresponsible "blog" journalism falls down. Fools read stupid comments in Engadget stories (or anywhere else), about Apple "taking their cut," and they just believe it.

How hard is this to understand? If you sell something in someones else's brick and mortar store you get the benefit of them managing the money, counting the sales, dealing with the credit card people etc. and save yourself the cost of renting your own store, paying for the heat and lights, etc. etc. It's only fair that the store should get paid for these things, and it's the same everywhere, no matter whether it's a virtual store or a regular old-fashioned one.

Business has operated this way since forever, why do all these fools think it's something new that only Apple is doing?

30% IS THE SAME COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT ALMOST EVERY OTHER ORGANISATION WOULD TAKE FROM YOU.

No one is forcing anything on anyone. They can walk. They can pull their apps. They can go to Android.

The whining and moaning over this hyped-up Sony story is simply uninformed nonsense. Apple is asking no more of these folks than every developer with an app on the App Store with a paid app is subject to, and every piece of music, movie and TV show sold through iTunes is subject to. For publishers to be treated differently would invite a lot of potential problems for Apple. If Apple was being consistent and treated everyone the same way as these publishers are demandingApple would have to forego its 30% for everything. That is simply silly.

Apple has nothing to do with Sony's content delivery . They banned the app for going outside the app for content pruchase and delivery via Sony's own servers, which is what the Kindle also does.

What a crowd of fanatics this place is. Apple does something which may well kill content on your device and you cheer like lemmings.

Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting....

Not to confuse you with facts, or anything, but Apple IS hosting the magazine Apps (which are usually free) and then serves the individual editions. Apple is NOT asking for a cut of purchases made outside of iTunes, merely that if such purchases are offered, a publisher has to provide an option to the user of buying the book (or paper) thru iTunes in-app purchase. Sounds reasonable to be.

BTW, how is this different from the current magazine (or book app) purchases? Every time I download a new edition of Wired or Project magazines, Apple gets it's 30% cut. Why should they not get their cut just because it's a subscription?

For all the complaining, please remember that the 30% cut is what allows Apple to host all those other free apps, including the free book readers, the free magazine apps, the free newspaper apps, the free TV/cable news apps, etc, etc.

Not to confuse you with facts, or anything, but Apple IS hosting the magazine Apps (which are usually free) and then serves the individual editions. Apple is NOT asking for a cut of purchases made outside of iTunes, merely that if such purchases are offered, a publisher has to provide an option to the user of buying the book (or paper) thru iTunes in-app purchase. Sounds reasonable to be.

BTW, how is this different from the current magazine (or book app) purchases? Every time I download a new edition of Wired or Project magazines, Apple gets it's 30% cut. Why should they not get their cut just because it's a subscription?

For all the complaining, please remember that the 30% cut is what allows Apple to host all those other free apps, including the free book readers, the free magazine apps, the free newspaper apps, the free TV/cable news apps, etc, etc.

Not to confuse you with facts or anything but Apple is not hosting any Sony or Amazon content.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what Apple requires. Apple requires that apps that direct users to download paid material outside the app also allow users to purchase paid material from inside the app. They must give the user the choice.

Of course choice when enforced by Apple is bad, isn't it?

Let's not let a few lies and misrepresentations get in the way of a good story, shall we?

Can the content owners charge one price out of app and that price plus 30% for in app purchases through iTunes? If so then I guess it is OK for Apple to ask for a premium iTunes purchase option be made available. If they want to force the pricing to be the same, NOT OK.

Can the content owners charge one price out of app and that price plus 30% for in app purchases through iTunes? If so then I guess it is OK for Apple to ask for a premium iTunes purchase option be made available. If they want to force the pricing to be the same, NOT OK.

That is what we, as yet, dont know. Nobody working in the industry knows. Can we have two buy buttons with two different prices ( itself a UI monstrosity). I would say no because that would be pointless to Apple, as nobody would pay for the premium.

Yes, these publishers MADE the iPad successful. They in no way wanted to attach themselves to the Apple Gravy Train.
In fact, if it wasn't for these publishers, Apple would still be beleaguered!
How DARE Apple ask for compensation for it's work!!!???
We publishers need to have a nice retreat to a resort somewhere to talk about how powerful we are.

This will only make my Kindle and Amazon's selection better, stronger, and cheaper.

But it's their fault- just look what happened to the music industry - they got tricked too. That's why the movie/film/ TV industry never, ever played Steve Jobs' game. They were the wisest as they now hold the card with all the available options out there now. You snooze, you lose.

Tricked??? Are you high? Apple pretty much saved the music industry from its own ignorance, greed and shortsightedness. The TV/film industry is just alienating more and more viewers at this point by making it hard to get content. Sorry guys, but 99% of your content is crap and many of us refuse to pay $100/month for content we don't want. I disconnected cable two years ago and haven't missed it. And if the studio bozos won't put it on Hulu or iTunes, I'm fine with BitTorrent. And they make nothing. Real smart. The only cards held by the tv and film studios are a house of cards. And we all know what happens to them.

Consider it the cost of doing business, which in turn ensures the product will be seen and made available for the largest possible swath of customers. THAT is worth 30%.

No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.

This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost. It wasnt banned outright ( as far as we know).

Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.

Of course I bet the 30% will drop and the people who argued that it was a good thing will forget they argued it was a good thing, just as they forget they argued that Apple wouldnt be doing what Sony said they were doing all of two days ago.

But if the 30% is not removed, or reduced to a tiny figure, not one thing - except the Daily and iBooks - will be published on the iPad.

No its not. Publishers can no more afford 30% of their margins to publish their content ( which in most cases they have to pay for) than Apple could afford to be on Windows if the iTunes transaction had to pay Microsoft 30%.

This becomes loss making very quickly. At the moment, no publisher will be on the app store if these rules apply at the 30%. Sony was banned for not using iTunes in-app purchasing, it refused to comply with the new rules because of the draconian cost.

Amazon will pull in June, or March when the rule is enforced for everybody.

If they couldn't afford the 30% mark-up, they'd avoid the iPad. Fact is, these guys are falling all over each other to gain this new form of revenue stream. They are deader than Thanksgiving turkeys without a major transformation otherwise.

Not to confuse you with facts, or anything, but Apple IS hosting the magazine Apps (which are usually free) and then serves the individual editions. Apple is NOT asking for a cut of purchases made outside of iTunes, merely that if such purchases are offered, a publisher has to provide an option to the user of buying the book (or paper) thru iTunes in-app purchase. Sounds reasonable to be.

BTW, how is this different from the current magazine (or book app) purchases? Every time I download a new edition of Wired or Project magazines, Apple gets it's 30% cut. Why should they not get their cut just because it's a subscription?

For all the complaining, please remember that the 30% cut is what allows Apple to host all those other free apps, including the free book readers, the free magazine apps, the free newspaper apps, the free TV/cable news apps, etc, etc.

Thanks for shedding some sensible, much-needed light. There are a bunch of people like asdasd caterwauling based on complete disinformation....

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).